ORDER This is an application for review under O. 47, R. 1, Civil P.C. against the judgment of this Court dated 31-3-1955 passed in Civil First Appeal No. 4 of 1955 on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 2. It appears that Puyam Liklai Singh, petitioner had brought Suit No. 2 of 1954 in the Court of the District Judge, Manipur for a declaration that he was entitled to the properties specified in the plaint as heir to Srimati Ibeton , Devi, and it was further prayed that if Puyam Liklai Singh was not found to be in possession should also be allowed to him. Moiranthem Maipak Singh had secured mutation in his name on the properties in question in Misc. Case No. 547 of 1953/54 and it was alleged that this order was legally inoperative as against the plaintiff who was the father of the late Ibeton Devi. An injunction was also prayed for against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the lands and the house in question. According to the plaintiff Sm. Ibeton Devi was married to M. Chetei Singh opposite party No. 2, but that marriage was dissolved according to the Manipuri custom of khainaba and after her divorce she lived with her father (plaintiff) in the ingkhol in question. The suit was contested by the opposite party No. 1 M. Maipak Singh on the ground that Sm. Ibeton Devi was his legally married wife and the ingkhol in question was purchased, by him in her name and the houses thereon were constructed with his money. 3. The learned District Judge decreed the suit holding that it was proved and admitted that Maipak Singh had some connection with Ibeton Devi, but he could not be recognised as the lawful husband of Sm. Ibeton Devi who could legally be deemed to be only his concubine, as according to the local custom the relationship between the first husband and the wife could not toe separated even though from the legal point of view she became the wife of another. The learned District Judge has observed as follows in this connection : "Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved, but according to local custom marriage can be dissolved, and ones wife alter separation can be taken as his wife by another. The learned District Judge has observed as follows in this connection : "Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved, but according to local custom marriage can be dissolved, and ones wife alter separation can be taken as his wife by another. When ones wife becomes the wife of another the separation becomes absolute from the point of law only. But from social and religious point of view the relationship between the first husband and the wife cannot be separated; it is for this reason that no formal marriage ceremony can be held according to shastras in respect of one once married female." 4. Reliance has been placed on the Vyabasthapatra Ex. P-A and it was contended that as under the Merger Agreement His Highness the Maharaja of Manipur remains the religious head of the State, this document would be binding on the parties. I think the Brahmasova as a religious body could give verdict on the question whether a pinda given by the son of a remarried woman could confer spiritual benefit on his father or not. So far as the question of inheritance goes it will be determined by the local custom as remarriage of a widow is practically unknown in Hindu shastric law. The prevailing customs in Manipur were duly recorded in the time of the former Maharaja and the affidavit now filed by the present petitioner shows that the report of the committee appointed with a view to introduce a bill in the Manipur State Legislative Assembly for enactment of a Code containing all Manipuri Customs, is before the Parliament of India for the enactment of the codification in question. As such there is no good ground for holding that the customs recorded in this report are not prevailing in Manipur State. As the petitioner did not set up any contrary custom in the present case, I think this Court was justified in relying on the custom which was set up by opposite party 1 and which found support from the report of the committee mentioned above. According to the report of the customs prevailing in Manipur, divorce or khainaba is permissible amongst the Hindus of Manipur, and it can be from the husbands side or from the wifes side. There is no condition attached and it can be done at pleasure. It is done even at a slight pretext. According to the report of the customs prevailing in Manipur, divorce or khainaba is permissible amongst the Hindus of Manipur, and it can be from the husbands side or from the wifes side. There is no condition attached and it can be done at pleasure. It is done even at a slight pretext. Gandharva form of marriage is also recognised in Manipur and it is further the custom here that the union of a widow with a man in Hindu society in Manipur is allowed. According to the prevailing custom union between a man and a widow as husband and wife is considered as marriage amongst the Hindus. For such union, approval (loukatpa) of some form of the relation of the widow is necessary. The same is also necessary for the union of a man with a divorced woman. It is also recognised as a local valid marriage. In the case of a marriage between a man and a divorced woman no provision has been made for loukatpa and in the case of a widow also it has been provided that unless loukatpa ceremony is performed a wife is not permitted to join in any social ceremony held by their parents and their relatives. It has not been laid down that unless loukatpa is performed the marriage would not be illegal and valid. 5. Sm. Ibeton Devi was divorced by opposite party 2 and then opposite party 1 admittedly had connection with her and according to the learned District Judge she became the wife of opposite party 1, but he held relying on the Vyabastapatra Ex. P-A that from the social and religious points of view relation between the first husband and Sm. Ibeton Devi could not be separated. That may be true from religious point of view, but in this case the question was of inheritance which was purely a legal question and once it is established that there was a marriage between Sm. Ibeton Devi and opposite party 1 and her father never objected to it for a very long time, there could be a presumption of his consent to the marriage and the legal heir of the deceased, lady according to the customary law mentioned above would succeed to her property. As such there cannot be deemed to be any error apparent on the face of the record in this case. 6. As such there cannot be deemed to be any error apparent on the face of the record in this case. 6. It has been contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner on the basis of the ruling reported in - Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius. AIR 1954 SC 526 (A), which lays down that where there is an error apparent on the face of the record the judgment is liable to be reviewed and the fact that the judgment was based on at misconception as to the concession made by the Advocate appearing before the Court would be good ground for granting a review. There is no doubt that an erroneous concession of law made by an Advocate of a party cannot be relied upon for saving the adversary. But in this case the matter was decided against a party on matters which did not come within, the issues on which the parties went to trial and so it was held that the decision clearly involved an error apparent on the face of the record. 7. In - North West Frontier Province v. Suraj Narain Anand, AIR 1949 PC 112 (B), their Lordships of the Privy Council reconsidered al matter where it was found that the police rules of 1937 to which the judgment related became operative in the year 1938 i.e. from 29-4-1938 and the S. I. of Police was dismissed on 25-4-1938 and so the rules could not retrospectively affect his position. 8. In - Hari Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath, AIR 1949 PC 106 (C), it was held that where there was an omission on the part of the Court to consider the clear provision of O. 41 R. 33 when the original judgment was passed and such omission, which appeared on the face of the judgment, constituted a sufficient ground analogous to those mentioned in O. 47, R. 1, the matter could be reviewed. 9. In - Mt. Jamna Kuer v. Lal Bahadur, AIR 1950 PC 131 (D), it has been held that where there is an error apparent on the face of the record whether the error occurred by reason of the counsels mistake or it crept in by reason of an oversight on the part of the Court, is not a circumstance which can affect the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court to review its decision. 10. 10. I have already shown above that in the present case there was no error apparent on the face of the record for once it was established and admitted that there was a marriage between opposite party 1 and Sm. Ibeton Devi who had earlier been divorced by opposite party 2 and all the legal consequences relating to inheritance would follow in accordance with the custom prevailing regarding such remarriage and so the rulings referred to above can have no application to the present case. 11. K. Yaima Singh v. A. Tomba Singh, AIR 1954 Mani 20 (E), in which it was held that in Manipur State the Maharaja is the religious head and it has been argued on the basis of this ruling that the Vyabasthapatra Ex. P-A is binding on the parties. The Merger Agreement appended at page 232 of the White Paper (vide article II) also lays down that His Highness would retain certain powers as religious head, but it does not confer any powers to divest an heir of the inheritance which would devolve on him on the death of his ancestor or wife, and so this ruling also does not help the petitioner. 12. It was next argued by the learned Advocate for petitioner that the marriage between Sm. Ibeton Devi and opposite party 1 was opposed to morality and as no loukatpa was performed it would be void and reliance was placed on - Wahengbam Kckngang Singh v. Wahengbam : Ongbi Pishak Devi, AIR 1954 Mani 9 (P), and also T. C. Hodsons The Meitheis (1908 edition) page 116 where it has been mentioned : "the fact is that most Manipuris regard cohabitation and public acknowledgment as sufficient, provided that due regard has been paid to the rules restricting marriage to members of the Meithei tribes and forbidding the intermarriage of persons of the same clan, salei." . Reliance has also been placed on appendix I of the same book which gives origins of the sevensagais. The argument is that as opposite party 2 is a sagai cousin of Maipak Singhs grandfather, he could not marry Sm. Ibeton Devi after she had been divorced by N. Chetai Singh. It is admitted in this case that after her divorce Sm. The argument is that as opposite party 2 is a sagai cousin of Maipak Singhs grandfather, he could not marry Sm. Ibeton Devi after she had been divorced by N. Chetai Singh. It is admitted in this case that after her divorce Sm. Ibeton Devi came back to her fathers place and it has been urged on behalf of opposite party I that she reverted to her fathers gotra at that time. Even if this position be not correct I think her marriage with opposite party 1 cannot be deemed to be illegal or immoral. A marriage by a widow with the brother or some other male relative of her deceased husband has been recognised as valid according to the customary law prevalent practically in all parts of India and also in Manipur, vide Rattigans Digest of Customary Law, (Edn. 13) page 380 in which it has been laid down that Korewa marriage with the brother or some other male relative of the deceased husband requires no religious ceremony and confers all the rights of valid marriage", vide also Mayne on Hindu Law and Usage (1950 edition) page 174, para 131, "Manu declares that a man may only marry a virgin, and that a widow may not marry again. The only exception which he appears to allow is in the case of a girl whose husband has died before consummation, who may be married again to the brother of the deceased bridegroom." No such custom of Manipur has been proved in the present case which might justify the inference that the marriage between Sm. Ibeton Devi and her former husbands very remote relation could be deemed to be illegal or immoral and so the ruling reported in AIR 1954 Mani 9 (F), cannot be applicable to the present case. 13. There is no doubt that a custom to be valid must not be immoral and a custom attributing to mere cohabitation all the legal effects of a marriage, thus confounding concubinage with marriage, can also be deemed to be invalid, vide Rustomjis Treatise on Customary Law in the Punjab, pages 27 and 29. But the marriage between a divorced wife and a remote relation of the former husband cannot be deemed to be invalid in view of the above mentioned principles. 14. But the marriage between a divorced wife and a remote relation of the former husband cannot be deemed to be invalid in view of the above mentioned principles. 14. Lastly, it was urged that opposite party 1 could not inherit the property in suit as they were the self-acquired properties of Sm. Ibeton Devi. Reliance has been placed on R. 6, Chapter VI of the Customs prevailing in Manipur amongst the Hindus and this rule is to the following effect : "If any property or money is earned by an unmarried woman or a widow or a khainaba, woman by her own exertions, she is full owner of the same." 15. According to the petitioner the father would be a preferential heir than the husband in cases of succession to ayautuka Stridhan, vide Gopalchandra Sarkar Sastrys Hindu Law, 1940 Edition, page 646. But the properties in question cannot be deemed to be ayautuka Stridhan of Sm. Ibeton Devi. Ayautuka has been explained in Mullas Hindu Law page 151 (1946 edition) as "gifts and bequests from relations made before or after marriage." This class includes gifts and bequests from father made before marriage, but not those made after marriage. As the properties in question were acquired by the lady the devolution will be governed by rule which relates to succession of properties acquired by mechanical arts. At page 131 Section 131 Mullas Hindu Law it has been laid down as follows : "A Hindu female may acquire property by mechanical arts or otherwise by her own exertions during maidenhood, or she may do so during coverture, or during widowhood. Property acquired by a Hindu female by mechanical arts or otherwise by her own exertions during maidenhood or widowhood is stridhan according to all the schools." The marriage of opposite party 1 with Sm. Ibeton Devi is proved according to the custom of Manipur and so succession to this stridhan property would be governed by S. 147 of Mullas Hindu Law page 140 which clearly laid down that the other kind of stridhan except sulka passes in the following order : 1. Unmarried daughter. 2. Married daughter who is unprovided for. 3. Married daughter who is provided for. 4. Daughters daughter. 5. Daughters son. 6. Son. 7. Sons son. 8. Husband. Unmarried daughter. 2. Married daughter who is unprovided for. 3. Married daughter who is provided for. 4. Daughters daughter. 5. Daughters son. 6. Son. 7. Sons son. 8. Husband. As such there is no force in the contention that, the present petitioner (father) is entitled to get the property in question by inheritance when Sm. Ibeton Devi must be deemed to be lawful wife of opposite party 1, vide Mayne on Hindu Law and Usage (1950 edition) Ss. 131 and 132 pages 174 and 175 also at page 161 S. 122; vide also - Jina Magan Pakhali v. Bai Jethi, AIR 1941 Bom 298 (G) and - Mohammad Jan Khan v. Mt. Sundar, AIR 1934 All 884 (H). 16. The rulings reported in - Jotiram Dalsukhram v. Bai Diwali, AIR 1939 Bom 154 (I); - Sm. Kamani Debi v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1946 Pat 316 (J) and - Gopikrishna Kasaudhan v. Mt. Jaggo, AIR 1936 PC 198 (K), lay down that where a marriage has been duly solemnised and is a marriage in fact, there would be a presumption in favour of there being a marriage in. law and where a marriage takes place according, to Hindu Law, the presumption is that it has taken place in an approved form rather than an. unapproved form. 17. In view of these rulings there remains no doubt on the point that the marriage between Sm. Ibeton Devi and opposite party was a legal and valid marriage according to the Manipur custom. The mere fact that the wife may not be able to participate in social functions would be no ground for depriving the husband his right of inheritance. 18. The present application for review cannot, therefore, be deemed to be legally maintainable as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The mere fact that the wife may not be able to participate in social functions would be no ground for depriving the husband his right of inheritance. 18. The present application for review cannot, therefore, be deemed to be legally maintainable as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Even if it be held for a moment that there is a mistake of law, the error cannot be deemed to be apparent as incorrect interpretation of law has been held to be not an apparent mistake vide - Maung Po Hla v. Ma Ngwe Sint, AIR 1937 Rang 56 (L) and - Kishun Chand Singh v. Makund Sarup, AIR 1938 All 308 (M), in which it has been clearly held that an erroneous view of law on a debatable point or a wrong exposition of the law or a wrong application of the law cannot be considered a mistake or an error on the face of the record. After going through the evidence on the record and also after taking into consideration all the circumstances and arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the parties, I am definitely of the opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in this case within the meaning of the O. 47, R. 1, Civil P.C. and so I dismiss the present review application with costs to opposite party 1. Opposite party 2 will neither pay nor receive any costs. Application dismissed.